Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than
those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that
Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are
among them. That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside
the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely
natural selection and adaptation. And this denial of basic science by
the company and our government threatens the future viability of
American agriculture.
Third Grade Science
Let's
start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation.
This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is
part of the basic third grade science curriculum.
As
we all remember from biology class, when an environment changes, trait
variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that
new environment and survive. Others will die out. The survivors are
then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental
conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might
have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same
species would perish. The drought-resistant plants then become the
"evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought
environment.
Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how
Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a
third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is
bringing to us all.
Biotech's Dirty Little Secret
First
a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly
hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger,
reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such
"miracle" crops exist. No significantly greater yielding crops, no more
effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less
pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of
agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds
of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create
greater agrochemical residues on our food. Why? Because around 85
percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and
around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of
herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup. Usually, if toxic weed-killing
chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will
destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists
genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants
that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are
killed, but the crops remain.
In the United States, more than 50 percent of all our cropland
is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that
feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for
additives like high fructose corn syrup. Almost none directly feeds
people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about
chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as
noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our
farmlands because of these altered crops.
Profits versus Science: Science loses
If
half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a
particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment.
The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably
already occurred to you. Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use
over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to
develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in
this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a
major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?
As
government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants
in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt
considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup,
this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient
to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated,
"Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active
ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event." They also suggested that
massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds." Independent scientists were aghast.
They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from
the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's
scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be
weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence,
the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with
Monsanto.
Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take
place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S.
farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres
of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming. Each year we see major
expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to
declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already
causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of
$1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.
Last year in a panel discussion
with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder
of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and
the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would
not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and
clear contrary evidence? He just shook his head and said "You're right,
weeds have evolved resistance." But apparently, Monsanto and their
government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science
lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even
higher.
"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial
Now
Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market
new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with
engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D
(one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange"). Monsanto has also gained
approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate
Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than
Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have
brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any
new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.
But won't
the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not
according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite
predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds
of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry. They claim -- as
they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it
is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from
two or more different herbicides with different methods.
Weed
scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past,
through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again.
So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are
virtually indestructible by any known chemical. But by then Monsanto and
Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the
"superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have
to deal with the other nightmares
that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like
Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.
A Better Way
A
science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail
chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed
control. There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that
emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building
rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return
productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and
could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.
So
it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous
science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to
these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic
disaster they will inevitably bring with them.
In the meantime,
the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" -- think of 70
million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases
caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its
enablers at the USDA.
Andrew Kimbrell -- Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety
Source: Huffington Post
|